5 ms·
Yeah it’s pretty remarkable that as soon as the bandwidth and storage requirements for video catch up, the industry quickly pushes past to the next level. I’m s
by gizajob 2y ago
Yeah it’s pretty remarkable that as soon as the bandwidth and storage requirements for video catch up, the industry quickly pushes past to the next level. I’m sure there’s a way that will be found to distribute the output, but we’re still talking veritable supercomputers needed to edit the raw files that this camera pumps out.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago> edit the raw files Shit, I didn't even consider the editing part. A pair of 4K images (one 4K image per eye) with 8 bits per channel is nearly 50 MB per frame uncompressed. At 90 fps, it's a whopping 4.48 GB per second. 268.8 GB per minute. I can't imagine they're actually doing the editing in uncompressed form. Even a modest 15 minute scene would be 4 TB, which after typing out, I suppose isn't actually THAT big. If they had an hour of footage, that's 16 TB, which is certainly big, it's not insanely big and could be done on consumer-grade SSDs.
- gizajob 2y agoYou edit using ProRes or some other kind of RAW proxy, which is then either high enough quality to be used directly, or at the end of the process what is basically a list of instructions can be issued by the software to perform all the operations required on the uncompressed file, offline/non-realtime. Then it doesn’t matter so much about the power of the machine because it just crunches the data, albeit for hours on end.